BALMOKAND KHATRI EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIALTRUST, AMRITSARversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

          BALMOKAND KHATRI EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL                                   A
                       TRUST, AMRITSAR
                                             v.
                            STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                  FEBRUARY 14, 1996
                                                                                        B
                  [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.]

               Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

              Sections 4( 1), 5-A, 6, 9, 17(4}-Acquisition of land for the purpose of   C
       allotting house sites to the poo1~Held, exercise of power under S.17(4) in not
       conducting an enquily as contemplated under S.5-A cannot be stTUck down
       when Govemment was of opinion that it urgently required possession of the
       land for providing house site to the po01~Simply because pmtly retained
       possession of acquired land, the acquisition cannot be said to be bad in law.
                                                                                        D
             Chameli Singh & Ors. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (1996) 1 SCALE
       101, relied on.

             Narayan Govind Gavate etc. v. State Maharashtra, (1977] 1 SCR 763,
       referred to.
                                                                                        E
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2684 of
       1981.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 14.4.76 and 7.2.80 of the Punjab
       & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1359/76 and 4460 of 1979.
                                                                                        F
               P.H. Parekh for the Appellant.

            M.M. Kumar, Additional Advocate General, Ranbir Yadav and G.K.
       Bansal for the Respondents.

               The following order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                        G
              Notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
       short, the "Act") was published in the State Gazette on February 26, 1976 .
..._   Dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A, declaration under Section
       6 was published on the same day. Notice under Section 9 was served on
       March 3, 1976. The appellant filed Writ Petition No.1359 of 1976 on March        H
                                            643
    644                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A 7, 1976. On March 18, 1976, the High Court granted stay of dispossession.
    After. the counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents, the High Court
    dismissed the writ petition on April 4, 1976. In the meanwhile, award
    enquiry was conducted and the award under Section 11 was made on
    March 18, 1976. Possession of the land was taken on April 17, 1976. It
B   would appear that the Land A~quisition Officer (LAO) had deposited the
    compensation on May 18, 1976. Record has been placed before us to show
    that the land was earmarked and distributed to 592 landless workers on
    April 22, 1976. On December 11, 1979, the appellant again filed Writ
    Petition No. 4460 of 1979 which came to be dismissed by the High Court
    on February 7, 1980. Thus this appeal by special leave. Interim stay granted
C   on May 8, 1980 was modified by this Court, maintaining status quo, by order
    dated September 13, 1981:

          It is clear from these facts that after dispensing with the. enquiry
    under Section 5-A, immediate action was taken by issuance of the notice
D   under Section 9 and award enquiry was conducted since dispossession was
    ordered by the High Court. After the dismissal of the writ petition, pos-
    session was taken on April 17, 1976. Thus the process of the requisition
    was completed and the acquisition became final. What remained to be ·
    done was only the determination of the compensation in respect of the
    acquired land. In this case, the land acquired is of the extent of 121 canals
E   10 marlas. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
    with his thorough preparation, has contended that dispensing with enquiry
    under Section 5-A is bad in law. However, we find no force in the ·
    contention. The Punjab Legislature has amended the Central Act by·
    Amendment Acts II/1954, XVIl/6 and XLVIIl/1956 whereunder an ex-
F   planation has been added to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act.
    Sub-section (2) was also added in which clause (b) of the sub-section
    envisages thus :                                                                I

                                                                                    "
            "(b) whenever in the opinion of the Collector it becomes necessary
            to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose
G           of any library or educational institution or for the construction,
            extension or improvement of any building or other structure in any


                                                                                    -
            village for the common use of inhabitants of such village, or any
            godown for any society registered under Co- operative Societies
            Act, 1912,or any dwelling house of for the poor, or the construction
H           of labour colonies or houses for any other class of people under a
      BALMOKAND KHATRI EDNL. AND INDL. TRUSTv. STATE                     645

        Government sponsored housing scheme, or any irrigation tank,            A
        irrigation, or drainage channel, or any well, or any public road;"

      Thus .the Government, by virtue of State Amendment is empowered
to exercise the urgency clause under sub-section (4) of Section 17 and to
dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Shri Parekh has
contended that mere existence of the power is not sufficient. The urgency B
should be such as would not brook delay of 30 days in conducting the
enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A. In this case, allotment of the
house sites to the poor is not such an urgency which cannot wait for
conducting the enquiry. Therefore, exercising the power under Section
17(4) is bad in law. He seeks to place reliance on the decision of this Court   c
in Narayan Govind Gavate Etc. v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 1 SCR 763.
In a recent decision in Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1996]
1 SCALE 101, this Court considered the entire case law and held that
providing house sites to the poor is an urgent necessity and exercise of the
power under Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A D
would be justified. The reasoning of this Court in Gavate's case also was
considered and it was held that exercising the power under Section 17 (4)
cannot be struck down when the Government was of the opinion that it
urgently required the possession of the land for providing house sites to
the poor.
                                                                                E
       It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood
completed by April 17, 1976 by which date possession of the land had been
taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still
retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is
difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisi-     F
tion. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchanama in
the presence of Panchas and taking pos!ession and giving delivery to the
beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Sub-
sequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to
illegal or unlawful possession.
                                                                                G
      Under these circumstances, merely because the appellant retained
possession of the acquired land, the acquisition cannot be said to be bad
in law. It is then contended by Shri Parekh that the appellant-Institution is
running an educational institution and intends to establish a public school
and that since other land was available, the ·Government would have             H
    646                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A   acquired some other land leaving the acquired land for the appellant. In
    the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court, it was stated that apart from
    the acquired land, appellant also owned 482 canals 19 marlas of land.
    Thereby, it is seen that the appellant is not disabled to proceed with the
    continuation of the educational institution which it seeks to establish. It is
    then contended that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to make
B   a representation to the State Government. We find that it is not necessary
    for us to give any such liberty since acquisition process has already been
    completed.

           Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Chief Secretary
C himself has conducted an enquiry and identified the officer who was
    responsible for the lapses in omitting to instruct the counsel and for not
    producing the record as part of the record of the Court. We accept the
    report submitted by the Chief Secretary. It would be open to him to pursue
    further action to reach a logical conclusion.

D          The appeal dismissed accordingly. No costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal dismissed.




                                                                                     --